FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KYU O. OH, No. 07-73380
Petitioner, Agency No. A039-765-209
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kyu O. Oh, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005),
and de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oh’s motion to remand
because she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (“[A]ny period of continuous residence . . . in the
United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed an offense
referred to in [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)].”); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
Because Oh filed her motion to remand “in place of” her appeals brief, the
BIA did not err in concluding that she abandoned her appeal. See Toquero v. INS,
956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992).
Oh’s remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-73380